Jump to content
Robert.CFRN Robert.CFRN (Member)

Conservative nurses

Politics   (38,459 Views 504 Comments)
2,054 Visitors; 72 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 8 of Conservative nurses. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Politically, I consider myself:

  1. 1. Politically, I consider myself:

    • Socialist
      25
    • Liberal
      129
    • Moderate
      47
    • Conservative
      89
    • Libertarian
      30

320 members have participated

The only reason that anyone has limited opportunities is because government employed morons tell them that they're victims, and that the U.S. owes them a living because they can't possibly succeed on the merits of their own hard work and industry. People can't possibly work a full time job while going to school, can't possibly develop an original idea into an industry, can't develop a life plan of dependence on self.

The whole everyone is a victim of society doesn't work for me. People who are willing to work and have life goals will succeed. People who depend on the government tit will live miserable, mediocre lives. Welcome to the real world.

Woah what? Interesting bubble you live in. Strange though that countries in Europe with MUCH more of a safety net, social programs, etc. all have more social mobility than the US. How do you explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I would like to see Israel slapped around a little (by the USA). I think it's high time we used our position as primary supporter of Israel to pressure them into behaving better.
That's enough for me to dismiss you as an uninformed left wing loon.Good day....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah what? Interesting bubble you live in. Strange though that countries in Europe with MUCH more of a safety net, social programs, etc. all have more social mobility than the US. How do you explain that?

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah what? Interesting bubble you live in. Strange though that countries in Europe with MUCH more of a safety net, social programs, etc. all have more social mobility than the US. How do you explain that?
What is your proof of "social mobility"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is the hard left that is telling kids that the world owes them a living, and that the government will provide that through welfare, food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, disability, etc etc

Who ever actually said this? Do you actually have a quote? No offense, but this whole idea of a nanny state is utter trite repeated by people who never studied economics or history. You seem intelligent, and I'm surprised you would repeat this. Social programs were created for a reason. Before Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, etc, people were dying. The safety net was created after the great depression to help people the next time a crunch took place. And it did, and I'm glad we have these social programs to help people during rough economic times. Nobody actually wants to be on these programs. It's not a choice most people make easily. And if you think welfare is so great, go look at how much people on welfare actually receive. Our safety net is actually quite awful compared to countries like Sweden, Netherlands, etc (who also happen to have better social mobility and good economies, which seems to go against your beliefs). And in terms of economics, the absolute worst thing to do during a bad recovery is cut aid to people who would otherwise starve. When people don't have money to spend, this kills consumer demand even more. Low consumer demand = companies not adding more jobs (well, it's more complicated since automation and technological progress is a huge factor today as well).

But anyway, nobody actually says this. Nobody wants to live on welfare, food stemps, unemployment, disability, etc. Those programs are there to help the less fortunate. I don't subscribe to any political ideology, but I do have liberal friends. None of them think that depending on the government is a good thing, unless you actually need it. Even Bernie Sanders, Senator from VT who is very liberal, would not agree with this at all.

What is your proof of "social mobility"?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

Edited by mzaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's enough for me to dismiss you as an uninformed left wing loon.Good day....

Name calling? Really? Oh well we who are actually conservatives have to get used to such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and how many people LOST their insurance because of the ACA? I had a great job, made great money. Then rules changed, I had to take a huge pay cut just to get coverage for myself and my daughter. Almost half my salary. Is it fair that people like you can't get covered? Of course not. But is it fair for people like me to lose it and a great job because of it?

How exactly did the ACA make you lose half your salary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T

I am with you on the ANA but my reason is that, as far as I can tell, the ANA despises actual nurses.

Interesting. My perception is exactly the opposite.

I don't like it. However I consider it to be child's play compared to the vast incompetence, lying, and tearing down our nation engaged in by the previous administration.

Yeah. This is what irritates me the most. Blame the previous administration, while the current one does no wrong. Give it a rest already.

I am glad that you like being told what to do, and you like being forced (eh, you aren't being forced to, since you apperently endorse Obamacare.) I, however, do not like being told I must have health insurance, when there was nothing wrong with my previous plan in the first place. I thought we had the freedom to choose.....and, on some level, we do. Choose to enroll, or pay a fine. Why the hell should I enroll at triple the premium cost to pay for others? The hospitals already get a tax break for charity care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree on the ANA. Leadership is largely a group of academics with lots of letters after their names.

As far as political perception, I suppose it depends on where you live. I live in Kentucky, which is a very conservative state. I notice that you're in Wisconsin, which is more liberal when you talk about places like Madison. (My wife worked as a nurse in Wisconsin for over 30 years.)

As far as lying and incompetence: "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. PERIOD." Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting individuals and groups, NSA data gathering, significant increase in U.S. casualties since the current administration took command of the military, government tapping the e-mails and phone calls of the press, Solyndra, bailouts, the administration illegally changing and selectively enforcing laws, etc... The Obama administration has set a new bar for incompetence and lying.

And I'm no Bush fan. Lucky me, I spent a year in Iraq as an Army nurse officer in a Combat Support Hospital. The Middle East isn't a place that we need to be. It can't be fixed. I think that Bush's fiscal policies were horrible. I don't think he vetoed a single spending bill sent to him by the Democratic congress, which ballooned the deficit. (Nowhere as bad as the Obama administration on spending, but still...)

The best government we've had in decades was when we had a Republican congress under Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole/Trent Lott, and Democratic president Bill Clinton. President Clinton was a policy wonk who sat down with Republicans, and they actively engaged in a problem solving process that actually balanced the federal budget.

Obama, Biden, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell... Be afraid... be very afraid.

^^ BINGO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who ever actually said this? Do you actually have a quote? No offense' date=' but this whole idea of a nanny state is utter trite repeated by people who never studied economics or history. You seem intelligent, and I'm surprised you would repeat this. Social programs were created for a reason. Before Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, etc, people were dying. The safety net was created after the great depression to help people the next time a crunch took place. And it did, and I'm glad we have these social programs to help people during rough economic times. Nobody actually wants to be on these programs. It's not a choice most people make easily. And if you think welfare is so great, go look at how much people on welfare actually receive. Our safety net is actually quite awful compared to countries like Sweden, Netherlands, etc (who also happen to have better social mobility and good economies, which seems to go against your beliefs). And in terms of economics, the absolute worst thing to do during a bad recovery is cut aid to people who would otherwise starve. When people don't have money to spend, this kills consumer demand even more. Low consumer demand = companies not adding more jobs (well, it's more complicated since automation and technological progress is a huge factor today as well). But anyway, nobody actually says this. Nobody wants to live on welfare, food stemps, unemployment, disability, etc. Those programs are there to help the less fortunate. I don't subscribe to any political ideology, but I do have liberal friends. None of them think that depending on the government is a good thing, unless you actually need it. Even Bernie Sanders, Senator from VT who is very liberal, would not agree with this at all. http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/ http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

Exactly. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there is equality of opportunity... as long as the government doesn't take the fruits of your labor. The primary hurdle that people must overcome is massive federal regulation and taxation.

The federal government is actively hostile toward those who have entrepreneurial aspirations, because wanting to start a business and seek to excel for the purpose of making a profit is evil.

The formula for our kids to be successful is simple. Don't get pregnant, or get a girl pregnant out of wedlock. Don't use drugs. Graduate high school. Don't join a gang. Get an education after high school that will give you a job skill that is needed in society. Join the military, go to a trade school to get a job skill, or go to college in a field that's in demand. (I have no sympathy for a kid who has a master's degree in impressionistic art as it relates to African political sensitivities.)

The issue is the hard left that is telling kids that the world owes them a living, and that the government will provide that through welfare, food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, disability, etc etc. Many unemployed now consider entry level jobs beneath them, which begs the question. Who should work stocking shelves in department stores, or preparing food at fast food restaurants if it's work that is beneath those receiving government benefits?

It's not so easy as you imply.

You make it seem like the poor, welfare recieving segment of the population you mention (and let's stop beating around the bush, you're talking about inner-cty minorities) are poor generation after generation simply because they fail to take advantage of all the magical opportunities that abound in our great nation.

Get real.

They're poor due to a variety of reasons, very few of which have anything to do with what you're talking about. Kids in these ghettos are behind the eight-ball from day one. Public schools are funded by property tax. Inner city school districts generate almost nil revenue from property tax so these schools will always be the worst funded, staffed and maintained in the nation. There is little public investment in these areas, thus few jobs. Poor infrastructure. Inadequete public transport.

So, education isn't really a "way out" for most of these kids. Most of these schools can barely keep the kids alive, let alone teach them how to read and write. And there's only so many basketball scholarships to be had. So what are their options? The army? Gangs? A minimum wage job at McDonalds? Sounds like some pretty crappy options to me.

And you're gonna tell me that inner-city minority kids have "equal opportunity" compared to kids in the suburbs? Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing:

I'm sick and tired of minorities, liberals and the "blue states" being accused of sucking away money from hard-working conservatives.

It's the "Red states" who suck up the vast majority of federal aide. Farmers are so subsidized by the feds that they are easily the most "socialist" segment of American society. You wanna talk about wealth redistribution..... well, you're right, wealth IS redistributed in the USA. It's redistributed from the Blue states to the Red ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×